- Home
- 2. About this Manual
- 2.1 Purpose of the Manual
- 2.2 Navigating the Manual
- 2.3 How our Practice and Procedures are Determined
- 2.4 Updating the Manual
- 3. Quality and Customer Engagement
- 3.1 Quality
- 3.2 Customer Service Charter (Timeliness Guidelines)
- 3.3 Efficient Examination
- 3.3.1 Use of FERs (Earlier Search and Examination Reports)
- 3.3.2 General Approach to Examination
- 3.3.3 Reserving Opinion and Restricting the Search
- 3.3.4 Communicating with the Applicant and Third Parties
- 3.4 Assisting Unrepresented Applicants
- 3.5 Staff Delegations, and Restrictions on Providing Customer Assistance
- 4. Classification and Searching
- 4.1 Search Theory
- 4.2 Patent Classifications
- 4.2.1 Patent Classification Systems
- 4.2.1.1 International Patent Classification (IPC)
- 4.2.1.1.1 Structure of the IPC
- 4.2.1.1.2 Headings and Titles
- 4.2.1.1.3 Definitions, Warnings and Notes
- 4.2.1.1.4 Function-Oriented and Application-Oriented Places
- 4.2.1.1.5 References
- 4.2.1.1.6 Indexing Codes
- 4.2.1.2 Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC)
- 4.2.2 Principles of Classification
- 4.2.2.1 Invention Information and Additional Information
- 4.2.2.1.1 Application of Indexing Codes/2000 Series
- 4.2.2.1.2 Classifying in Residual Places
- 4.2.2.1.3 Places that cannot be the First Symbol
- 4.2.2.2 Classification Priority Rules
- 4.2.2.2.1 Common Rule
- 4.2.2.2.2 First Place Priority Rule
- 4.2.2.2.3 Last Place Priority Rule
- 4.2.2.2.4 Special Rules
- 4.2.2.2.5 Classifying a Combination of Technical Subjects
- 4.2.2.3 Classifying in Function-Oriented and Application-Oriented Places
- 4.2.2.4 Classifying Chemical Compounds
- 4.2.2.5 CPC Classification Rules
- 4.2.2.6 Classification using C-sets
- 4.2.3 Other Classification Information
- 4.2.3.1 Sub-Codes - Discontinued
- 4.2.3.2 The Australian Classification System - Discontinued
- 4.2.3.3 Indexing According to IPC Edition (2006) - Discontinued
- 4.2.3.4 Master Classification Database (MDC)
- 4.2.3.5 Recording Classification Symbols on Machine-Readable Records
- 4.2.3.6 Presentation of Classification Symbols and Indexing Codes on Patent Documents
- 4.3 Initial Search Considerations
- 4.3.1 Construction and the Inventive Concept
- 4.3.2 Earlier Search Results
- 4.3.3 Additional Searching
- 4.3.4 Top-Up Searching
- 4.3.5 Preliminary Search
- 4.3.6 Applicant and/or Inventor Name Searching
- 4.4 Development of the Search Strategy
- 4.4.1 Three Person Team (3PT)
- 4.4.2 Search Strategy Considerations
- 4.4.2.1 Independent Claims
- 4.4.2.2 Dependent Claims
- 4.4.2.3 Broad Claims
- 4.4.2.4 Reserving the Search
- 4.4.2.5 Controlled Language
- 4.4.3 Search Area
- 4.5 Conducting the Search
- 4.6 Recording the Search Details
- 4.7 Annexures
- Annex D - Search Information Statement
- Annex E - Examples and Instructions for completing the SIS for Sequence and Chemical Structure Searches
- Annex N - Guidelines for Searching Indian TKDL
- Annex P - The Role of the Three Person Team (3PT) in Searching
- 4.8 User Guides
- 5. National
- 5.1 Procedures
- 5.2 Understanding Legislation
- 5.2.1 Modern Australian Law
- 5.2.2 Working with case law
- 5.2.3 Working with statute
- 5.2.4 Practical guide to interpreting legislation
- 5.3 Formalities and Forms
- 5.3.1 Formalities Checking
- 5.3.1.1 Formalities Required and Assessed at Filing
- 5.3.1.2 Credible Address for Service
- 5.3.1.3 Formalities Required and Assessed During Examination
- 5.3.2 Formal requirements of the Specification
- 5.3.2.1 Title of the Application
- 5.3.2.2 Abstracts
- 5.3.2.3 Requirements for Text, Pagination, Formulas, Equations, Drawings, Graphics, and Photographs
- 5.3.2.4 Substitute Pages to comply with formalities
- 5.3.2.5 Requirements for Amino Acid and Nucleotide Sequences
- 5.3.2.6 Scandalous Matter
- 5.3.3 Approved Forms (including patent request)
- 5.3.4 Signature Requirements for Forms and Other Documents
- 5.3.5 Return or Deletion of Documents
- 5.4 Entitlement
- 5.4.1 Who can file and who can be granted a patent
- 5.4.2 Statement of entitlement
- 5.4.3 Artificial Intelligence - Inventorship and Entitlement
- 5.4.4 Annex A - Examples of Legal Persons
- 5.4.5 Annex B - Examples of Organisations of Uncertain Status as Legal Persons
- 5.5 Construction of Specifications, Claims, and Claim Types
- 5.5.1 Purpose of Construction
- 5.5.2 Considerations Relevant to Construction of the Specification
- 5.5.2.1 Initial Considerations
- 5.5.2.2 The Addressee
- 5.5.2.3 The Role of Common General Knowledge
- 5.5.2.4 The Invention Described
- 5.5.3 Rules of Construction for a Specification
- 5.5.3.1 Words are Given Plain Meaning
- 5.5.3.2 Specification Read as a Whole
- 5.5.3.3 Purposive Construction
- 5.5.3.4 Dictionary Principle
- 5.5.3.5 Reject the Absurd
- 5.5.3.6 Description Construed as a Technical Document
- 5.5.3.7 Errors, Mistakes, Omissions
- 5.5.4 Claim Construction and Claim Types
- 5.5.4.1 Claims are Construed as a Legal Document
- 5.5.4.2 Presumption Against Redundancy
- 5.5.4.3 Omnibus Claims
- 5.5.4.4 Swiss Claims
- 5.5.4.5 Product by Process Claims
- 5.5.4.6 Parametric Claims
- 5.5.4.7 ‘For Use’, ‘When Used’ and Similar Wording in Claims
- 5.5.4.8 ‘Comprises‘, ‘Includes‘, ‘Consists of‘ and ‘Contains‘ and Similar Wording in Claims
- 5.5.4.9 Reference Numerals in Claims
- 5.5.4.10 Relative Terms
- 5.5.4.11 ‘Substantially‘, ‘About‘, ‘Generally’
- 5.5.4.12 Appended Claims
- 5.6 Examination
- 5.6.1 Relevant Dates, Definitions, Legal Standards and Other Prescribed Matters (e.g Publication)
- 5.6.1.1 Priority dates and Filing Dates
- 5.6.1.2 Effect of Publication
- 5.6.1.3 Definitions (Invention, Alleged Invention, Meaning of a Document etc.)
- 5.6.1.4 Balance of Probabilities Standard
- 5.6.1.5 Application of the Balance of Probabilities in Examination
- 5.6.2 Factors to consider before commencing examination
- 5.6.2.1 Request for Examination
- 5.6.2.2 Application in a State of Lapse?
- 5.6.2.3 Extension of Time Requested (s223 actions)
- 5.6.2.4 Payment of Fees
- 5.6.2.5 Translations of Specifications, Article 19 and Article 34 Amendments (Requirements for Certification, Poor Translations)
- 5.6.2.6 Obtaining Priority Documents
- 5.6.2.7 Report Dispatch, Correction of Report etc.
- 5.6.2.8 Further Report Considerations
- 5.6.2.9 Convention applications
- 5.6.3 The Specification and Claims to Examine
- 5.6.3.1 Consideration of Amendments Made prior to examination
- 5.6.3.2 Claims are directed to a Single Invention (Unity)
- 5.6.3.3 Omnibus claims – References to the Descriptions or Drawings
- 5.6.3.4 Provisional specifications - Examination
- 5.6.4 Citations: Prior Art Base and Construction of Prior Art
- 5.6.4.1 Prior Art - What is Included (Definition From the Act, Publicly Available, Exclusions, Grace Period)
- 5.6.4.2 Construing a Citation
- 5.6.4.3 Level of Disclosure Required (Enabling Disclosure, Clear and Unmistakable Directions etc)
- 5.6.4.4 Single Source of Information, Combination of Documents
- 5.6.4.5 Third Party Notifications
- 5.6.4.6 Identifying and Raising Citations
- 5.6.5 Novelty, Whole of Contents, Grace Periods, Secret Use
- 5.6.5.1 Determining Novelty
- 5.6.5.2 Whole of Contents
- 5.6.5.3 Prior Use, Secret Use and Confidential Information
- 5.6.5.4 Novelty - Specific Examples
- 5.6.5.5 Selections
- 5.6.5.6 Issues Specific to Chemical Compositions
- 5.6.6 Inventive Step
- 5.6.6.1 Inventive Step Requirements
- 5.6.6.2 Information for Assessing Inventive Step
- 5.6.6.3 Tests for Inventive Step
- 5.6.6.4 Assessing Inventive Step
- 5.6.6.5 Indicators of Inventive Step
- 5.6.6.6 Issues Specific to Chemical Compositions
- 5.6.7 Full Disclosure, Sufficiency, Clarity, Support and Usefulness (S40 considerations)
- 5.6.7.1 Claims are Clear and Succinct
- 5.6.7.2 Clear and Complete Disclosure s40(2)(a)
- 5.6.7.3 Support for the Claims s40(3)
- 5.6.7.4 Difference Between ‘Clear and Complete Disclosure’ and ‘Support’
- 5.6.7.5 Best Method
- 5.6.7.6 Complete Disclosure Micro-Organisms and Other Life Forms (Budapest Treaty, Deposit Requirements)
- 5.6.7.7 Claims define the Invention
- 5.6.7.8 Annex A - Examples: Subsections 40(2)(a) and 40(3)
- 5.6.8 Patent Eligible Subject Matter (Manner of Manufacture)
- 5.6.8.1 General Principles-Assessing Manner of Manufacture
- 5.6.8.2 Alleged Invention
- 5.6.8.3 Fine Arts
- 5.6.8.4 Discoveries, Ideas, Scientific Theories, Schemes and Plans
- 5.6.8.5 Printed Matter
- 5.6.8.6 Computer Implemented Inventions, Schemes and Business Methods
- 5.6.8.7 Games and Gaming Machines
- 5.6.8.8 Mathematical Algorithms
- 5.6.8.9 Methods of Testing, Observation and Measurement
- 5.6.8.10 Mere Working Directions
- 5.6.8.11 Nucleic Acids and Genetic Information
- 5.6.8.12 Micro-Organisms and Other Life Forms
- 5.6.8.13 Treatment of Human Beings
- 5.6.8.14 Human Beings and Biological Processes for Their Generation
- 5.6.8.15 Agriculture and Horticulture
- 5.6.8.16 Combinations, Collocations, Kits, Packages and Mere Admixtures
- 5.6.8.17 New Uses
- 5.6.8.18 Other Issues e.g. Contrary to Law, Mere Admixtures
- 5.6.8.19 Useful (Utility)
- 5.6.8.20 Annex A - History of Manner of Manufacture
- 5.6.9 Acceptance, Grant and Refusal of Applications
- 5.6.9.1 Conditions and Time for Acceptance
- 5.6.9.2 Postponement of Acceptance
- 5.6.9.3 Extension of Acceptance Period
- 5.6.9.4 Revocation of Acceptance
- 5.6.9.5 Refusal of Acceptance-Specific Circumstances
- 5.6.9.6 Refusal of an Application
- 5.6.9.7 Continued Examination-Result of a Decision
- 5.6.9.8 Lapsing of an Application
- 5.6.9.9 Withdrawal of an Application
- 5.6.9.10 Double Patenting - S64(2) and 101B(2)(h) - Multiple Applications
- 5.6.9.11 Parallel applications (applications for both innovation and standard)
- 5.6.9.12 Register of Patents
- 5.6.9.13 Annex A - Example Bar-to-Grant Letter (Accepted Despite Multiple Inventions)
- 5.6.9.14 Acceptance and QRS Issues
- 5.6.10 Divisional Applications
- 5.6.10.1 Requirements to Claim Divisional Status
- 5.6.10.2 Priority Entitlement
- 5.6.10.3 Time Limits for Filing
- 5.6.10.4 Status of the Parent
- 5.6.10.5 Examination of Divisional Applications
- 5.6.10.6 Innovation Divisional Applications
- 5.6.10.7 Annex A - Procedural Outline to Divisional Examination
- 5.6.11 Patents of Addition
- 5.6.11.1 Conditions for Filing
- 5.6.11.2 Improvement or Modification
- 5.6.11.3 Differentiation from the Parent
- 5.6.11.4 Examination of Additional Applications
- 5.6.11.5 Amendment of the Parent
- 5.6.11.6 Annex A - Procedural Outline to Patents of Addition Examination
- 5.6.12 Preliminary search and Opinion (PSO)
- 5.6.12.1 Requests for PSO
- 5.6.12.2 PSO - Search and Examination Procedure
- 5.6.12.3 PSO - Report Requirements
- 5.6.12.4 Response to the PSO
- 5.6.13 Re-Examination
- 5.6.13.1 Commencing Re-Examination
- 5.6.13.2 Re-Examination Process
- 5.6.13.3 Completion of Re-Examination
- 5.6.13.4 Refusal to Grant or Revocation Following Re-Examination
- 5.6.14 Prohibition Orders- Applications Concerning Defence of the Commonwealth and/or involving Associated Technology (e.g. enrichment of nuclear material)
- 5.6.14.1 Effect of Prohibition orders
- 5.6.14.2 Applications Concerning Defence of the Commonwealth
- 5.6.14.3 Applications Concerning ‘Associated Technology’ (Chapter 15 Applications)
- 5.6.15 Innovation Patents
- 5.6.15.1 The Innovation Patent System
- 5.6.15.2 Types of Innovation Patents
- 5.6.15.3 Formalities Check for Innovation Patents
- 5.6.15.4 Examination of Innovation Patents
- 5.6.15.5 Determining Innovative step
- 5.6.15.6 Certification, Opposition, Ceasing/Expiring of Innovation Patents
- 5.6.15.7 Annex - Innovation Patent Certification Form
- 5.6.16 Annex A - Procedural Outline for Full Examination of a Standard Patent Application
- 5.6.17 Annex B - Examination of National Phase Applications: Indicators of Special or Different Considerations
- 5.6.18 Annex C - Applicant and Inventor Details as Shown on PCT Pamphlet Front Page
- 5.6.19 Annex D - Example of PCT Pamphlet Front Page
- 5.7 Amendments
- 5.7.1 What can be Amended and When
- 5.7.1.1 What Documents can be Amended?
- 5.7.1.2 Who can Request Amendments (incl consent of licensees/mortgagees)?
- 5.7.1.3 When can Amendments be Requested?
- 5.7.1.4 Requirements to provide Reasons for Amendments
- 5.7.1.5 Withdrawal of Amendments
- 5.7.1.6 Circumstances where an amendment cannot be processed (i.e. pending court proceedings, Application has been Refused)
- 5.7.1.7 Granting Leave to Amend
- 5.7.1.8 Fees Associated with Amendments
- 5.7.1.9 Annex A - Guidelines for Completing the Voluntary Section 104 Allowance Form
- 5.7.2 Amendment of the Patent Request and Other Filed Documents
- 5.7.2.1 Form of the Request to Amend the Patent Request
- 5.7.2.2 Non-Allowable Amendments to Patent Request
- 5.7.2.3 Changing the Applicant or Nominated Person
- 5.7.2.4 Converting the Application
- 5.7.2.5 Amendments to the Notice of Entitlement and Other Documents
- 5.7.3 Amendments-Provisional Applications
- 5.7.4 Amendments to Complete Specifications
- 5.7.4.1 Form of proposed amendments (statement of proposed amendments)
- 5.7.4.2 Allowability of Amendments Prior to Acceptance
- 5.7.4.3 Allowability of Amendments After Acceptance
- 5.7.4.4 Allowability of Amendments After Grant
- 5.7.4.5 Amendments not Otherwise Allowable
- 5.7.4.6 Opposition to Amendments
- 5.7.4.7 Annex A - Amended Claims Format
- 5.7.5 Amendments to Correct a Clerical Error or Obvious Mistake
- 5.7.5.1 Definition of Clerical Error
- 5.7.5.2 Definition of Obvious Mistake
- 5.7.5.3 Evidence required to prove a Clerical Error or Obvious Mistake
- 5.7.6 Amendments Relating to Micro-Organisms and Sequence Listings
- 5.7.6.1 Insertion or Alteration of Sec 6(c) Information
- 5.7.6.2 Amendments or Corrections of Sequence Listings
- 5.7.7 Amendments during Opposition Proceedings
- 5.7.7.1 Initial Processing of the Request to Amend During Oppositions
- 5.7.7.2 Considering the Amendments and Comments from the Opponent
- 5.7.7.3 Considering Amendments as a Result of a Hearing Decision
- 5.7.7.4 Amendments where Decision of the Commissioner is Appealed
- 5.7.7.5 Annex A - Section 104 Amendments During Opposition Proceedings: Check Sheet
- 6. International
- 6.1 International Searching
- 6.1.1 Procedural Outline - PCT International Search
- 6.1.2 Introduction- International Searching
- 6.1.2.1 Overview- International Searching
- 6.1.2.2 Overview-International Search Opinion (ISO)
- 6.1.2.3 General Procedures
- 6.1.2.4 Extent of Search
- 6.1.2.5 Minimum Documentation
- 6.1.2.6 Examination Section Procedures
- 6.1.2.7 Searching Examiner
- 6.1.2.8 Other Considerations
- 6.1.2.9 Copending Applications
- 6.1.3 Search Allocation and Preliminary Classification
- 6.1.4 Unity of Invention
- 6.1.4.1 Unity of Invention Background
- 6.1.4.2 Determining Lack of Unity
- 6.1.4.3 Combinations of Different Categories of Claims
- 6.1.4.4 Markush Practice
- 6.1.4.5 Intermediate and Final Products in Chemical Applications
- 6.1.4.6 Biotechnological Inventions
- 6.1.4.7 Single General Inventive Concept
- 6.1.4.8 A Priori and A Posteriori Lack of Unity
- 6.1.4.9 Issuing the Invitation to Pay Additional Search Fees
- 6.1.4.10 Unsupported, Unclear, Long and/or Complex Claim Sets with Clear Lack of Unity
- 6.1.4.11 Payment of Additional Search Fees Under Protest
- 6.1.4.12 Completing the Search Report
- 6.1.4.13 Time for Completing the Search Report
- 6.1.4.14 Reported Decisions
- 6.1.4.15 Other Decisions from the EPO
- 6.1.5 Abstract and Title
- 6.1.6 Subjects to be Excluded from the Search
- 6.1.7 Claim Interpretation, Broad Claims, PCT Articles 5 and 6
- 6.1.7.1 Claim Interpretation According to the PCT Guidelines
- 6.1.7.1.1 PCT Guideline References and Flow Chart
- 6.1.7.1.2 Overview of the Hierarchy
- 6.1.7.1.3 Special Meaning, Ordinary Meaning, Everyday Meaning
- 6.1.7.1.4 Closed and Open Definitions and Implications for Interpretation
- 6.1.7.1.5 Implications of the Hierarchy on Searching
- 6.1.7.1.6 PCT GL Appendix Paragraphs 5.20[1] and 5.20[2]
- 6.1.7.1.7 Interpretation of Citations - Inherency
- 6.1.7.2 Broad Claims
- 6.1.7.3 PCT Articles 5 and 6
- 6.1.7.4 Claims Lacking Clarity and Excessive/Multitudinous Claims
- 6.1.7.5 Procedure for Informal Communication with the Applicant
- 6.1.8 Search Strategy
- 6.1.8.1 Introduction
- 6.1.8.2 The Three Person Team (3PT)
- 6.1.8.3 Area of Search
- 6.1.8.4 Search Considerations
- 6.1.9 Basis of the Search
- 6.1.10 Non-Patent Literature
- 6.1.11 Search Procedure
- 6.1.11.1 Overview - Novelty / Inventive Step
- 6.1.11.2 Inventive Step
- 6.1.11.3 Searching Product by Process Claims
- 6.1.11.4 Dates Searched
- 6.1.11.5 Conducting the Search
- 6.1.11.6 Useful Techniques ("piggy back/forward" searching)
- 6.1.11.7 Obtaining Full Copies
- 6.1.11.8 Considering and Culling the Documents
- 6.1.11.9 Ending the Search
- 6.1.11.10 Categorising the Citations
- 6.1.11.11 Grouping the Claims
- 6.1.12 Search Report and Notification Form Completion
- 6.1.12.1 Background Search Report and Notification Form Completion
- 6.1.12.2 Applicant Details
- 6.1.12.3 General Details
- 6.1.12.4 Fields Searched
- 6.1.12.5 Documents Considered to be Relevant
- 6.1.12.5.1 Selection of Documents Considered to be Relevant
- 6.1.12.5.2 Citation Category
- 6.1.12.5.3 Citation of Prior Art Documents
- 6.1.12.5.4 Citation of URLs
- 6.1.12.5.5 Citation Examples
- 6.1.12.5.6 Citing Patent Documents Retrieved from EPOQUE
- 6.1.12.5.7 Relevant Claim Numbers
- 6.1.12.6 Family Member Identification
- 6.1.12.7 Date of Actual Completion of the Search
- 6.1.12.8 Refund Due
- 6.1.12.9 Contents of Case File at Completion
- 6.1.13 Reissued, Amended or Corrected ISRs and ISOs
- 6.1.14 Priority Document
- 6.1.15 Foreign Patent Search Aids and Documentation
- 6.1.16 Assistance with Foreign Languages
- 6.1.17 Rule 91 Obvious Mistakes in Documents
- 6.1.18 Nucleotide and/or Amino Acid Sequence Listings
- 6.1.18.1 Background Nucleotide and/or Amino Acid Sequence Listings
- 6.1.18.2 Office Practice
- 6.1.18.3 Summary
- 6.1.19 Annexes
- Annex A - Blank ISR
- Annex B - Completed ISR
- Annex C - Completed ISR
- Annex D - Declaration of Non-Establishment of ISR
- Annex E - Completed Invitation to pay additional fees
- Annex F - Completed ISR with unity observations
- Annex H - Searching Broad Claims
- Annex I - Completed notification of change of abstract
- Annex J - Completed notification of decision concerning request for rectification
- Annex K - The role of the 3 Person Team in Searching
- Annex S - Refund of Search Fees
- Annex U - ISR Quality Checklist
- Annex V - Internet Searching
- Annex W - Obtaining full text from internet
- Annex Z - USPTO kind codes
- Annex AA - Markush Claims
- Annex BB - Article 5/6 Comparisons
- 6.2 International Type Searching
- 6.2.1 Procedural Outline International Type Search Report
- 6.2.2 Introduction - International Type Searching
- 6.2.3 Classification and Search Indication
- 6.2.4 Unity of Invention
- 6.2.5 Subjects to be Excluded from the Search
- 6.2.6 Obscurities, Inconsistencies or Contradictions
- 6.2.7 Abstract and Title
- 6.2.8 Search Report
- 6.2.9 Completing Search Report and Opinion Form
- 6.2.10 Annexes
- 6.3 International Examination
- 6.3.1 Procedural Outline Written Opinion
- 6.3.2 Introduction International Examination
- 6.3.3 The Demand and IPRPII
- 6.3.4 Top-up Search
- 6.3.5 First IPE action
- 6.3.5.1 Introduction - First IPE Action
- 6.3.5.2 Supplementary International Search Report
- 6.3.5.3 PCT Third Party Observations
- 6.3.6 Response to Opinion
- 6.3.7 IPRPII and Notification
- 6.3.8 Completing ISO, IPEO and IPRPII Forms
- 6.3.8.1 Front Page and Notification Application Details
- 6.3.8.2 Box I Basis of Opinion/Report for ISOs, IPEOs and IPRPs
- 6.3.8.3 Box II Priority
- 6.3.8.4 Box III Non-establishment of Opinion
- 6.3.8.5 Box IV Unity of Invention
- 6.3.8.6 Box V Reasoned Statement Regarding Novelty, Inventive Step & Industrial Applicability
- 6.3.8.7 Box VI Certain Documents Cited
- 6.3.8.8 Box VII Certain Defects
- 6.3.8.9 Box VIII Certain Observations
- 6.3.9 General Considerations
- 6.3.9.1 Article 19 or Article 34(2)(b) Amendments
- 6.3.9.2 Formalities
- 6.3.9.3 General Notes on Form Completion
- 6.3.9.4 Rule 91 Obvious Mistakes in Documents
- 6.3.9.5 Processing withdrawals of PCTs
- 6.3.10 Annexes
- Annex A - Written Opinion-ISA
- Annex B - Written Opinion-IPEO
- Annex C - Notification of Transmittal of IPERII
- Annex D - IPRPII
- Annex E - IPRPII Clear Novel and Inventive Box V Only
- Annex F - Invitation to Restrict/Pay Additional Fees - Unity
- Annex G - Extension of Time Limit
- Annex H - IPE Quality Checklist
- Annex I - Examples of Inventive Step Objections
- Annex J - Examples of Objections under PCT Articles 5 and 6
- Annex K - Example of PCT Third Party Observations
- Annex L - Blank Written Opinion - ISA
- Annex M - Blank Written Opinion - IPEO
- Annex N - Blank IPRPII
- Annex O - ISO/ISR with Omnibus Claims
- Annex P - PCT Timeline
- Annex Z - Best Practice Examples
- 6.4 Fiji Applications
- 6.4.1 Introduction
- 6.4.2 Completion Time and Priority
- 6.4.3 Initial Processing
- 6.4.4 Search Procedure
- 6.4.5 Search Report and Advisory Opinion
- 6.4.6 Further Advisory Opinion
- 6.4.7 Final Processing
- 6.4.8 Annexes
- 6.5 Thai Applications
- 6.5.1 Introduction to Thai Applications
- 6.5.2 Completion Time and Priority Thai
- 6.5.3 Initial Processing Thai
- 6.5.4 Search Procedure Thai
- 6.5.5 Search Report Thai
- 6.5.6 Final Processing Thai
- 6.5.7 Annex A - Thai Search Report
- 6.6 WIPO Searches
- 6.6.1 Introduction
- 6.6.2 Completion Time and Priority
- 6.6.3 Initial Processing
- 6.6.4 Search Procedure
- 6.6.5 Search Report
- 6.6.6 Final Processing
- 6.6.7 Annexes
- 6.7 Other Countries
- 6.8 PCT Articles, Regulations and Guidelines et al
- 6.9 Miscellaneous
- 7. Oppositions, Disputes and Extensions
- 7.1 Role and Powers of the Commissioner in Hearings
- 7.2 Oppositions, Disputes and other proceedings-Procedural summaries
- 7.2.1 Oppositions to grant of a standard patent-Section 59 oppositions
- 7.2.1.1 Commencing the Opposition - Filing a Notice of Opposition
- 7.2.1.2 Filing the Statement of Grounds and Particulars
- 7.2.1.3 Evidence and Evidentiary Periods
- 7.2.1.4 Finalising the Opposition
- 7.2.2 Opposition to Innovation Patents-Section 101M Oppositions
- 7.2.2.1 Commencing the Opposition - Filing the Opposition Documents
- 7.2.2.2 Evidence and Evidentiary Periods
- 7.2.2.3 Finalising the Opposition
- 7.2.3 Oppositions to an Extension of Term of a Pharmaceutical Patent (Section 75(1) Oppositions)
- 7.2.3.1 Commencing the Opposition - Filing a Notice of Opposition
- 7.2.3.2 Filing the Statement of Grounds and Particulars
- 7.2.3.3 Evidence and Evidentiary Periods
- 7.2.3.4 Finalising the Opposition
- 7.2.4 Oppositions to Request to Amend an Application or Other Filed Document (Section 104(4) Oppositions)
- 7.2.4.1 Commencing the Opposition - Filing a Notice of Opposition
- 7.2.4.2 Filing the Statement of Grounds and Particulars
- 7.2.4.3 Evidence and Evidentiary Periods
- 7.2.4.4 Finalising the Opposition
- 7.2.5 Oppositions to Extensions of Time Under Section 223 (Section 223(6) Oppositions
- 7.2.5.1 Commencing the Opposition - Filing a Notice of Opposition
- 7.2.5.2 Filing the Statement of Grounds and Particulars
- 7.2.5.3 Evidence and Evidentiary Periods
- 7.2.5.4 Finalising the Opposition
- 7.2.6 Oppositions to Grant of a Licence (Regulation 22.21(4) Oppositions)
- 7.2.6.1 Commencing the Opposition - Filing a Notice of Opposition
- 7.2.6.2 Filing the Statement of Grounds and Particulars
- 7.2.6.3 Evidence and Evidentiary Periods
- 7.2.6.4 Finalising the Opposition
- 7.2.7 Disputes Between Applicants and Co-Owners (Directions Under Section17 and Determinations Under Section 32)
- 7.2.8 Entitlement Disputes (Applications Under Sections 33-36 and 191A)
- 7.3 Directions
- 7.3.1 Directions in Opposition Proceedings
- 7.3.1.1 Direction to Stay an Opposition Pending Another Action
- 7.3.1.2 Further and Better Particulars
- 7.3.1.3 Time for Filing Evidence in a Substantive Opposition
- 7.3.1.4 Time for Filing Evidence in a Procedural Opposition
- 7.3.1.5 General Conduct of Proceedings
- 7.3.1.6 Further Directions
- 7.3.2 Directions that an Application Proceed in Different Name(s) - Section 113
- 7.4 Opposition Documents, Requirements and Amendments
- 7.4.1 Notice of Opposition
- 7.4.2 Statement of Grounds and Particulars
- 7.4.3 Amending Opposition Documents
- 7.4.4 Filing of Opposition Documents
- 7.5 Evidence
- 7.5.1 Presentation of Evidence
- 7.5.1.1 Written Evidence and Declarations
- 7.5.1.2 Oral Evidence
- 7.5.1.3 Physical Evidence - Special Considerations
- 7.5.2 Admissibility of Evidence
- 7.5.3 Evidence Filed Out of Time
- 7.6 Production of Documents, Summonsing Witnesses
- 7.6.1 Requests for Commissioner to Exercises Powers Under Section 210(1)(a) & 210(1)(c)
- 7.6.2 Basis for Issuing a Summons
- 7.6.3 Basis for Requiring Production of Documents or Articles
- 7.6.4 Reasonable Expenses
- 7.6.5 Complying with the Summons or Notice to Produce, Reasonable Excuses
- 7.6.6 Sanctions for Non-Compliance
- 7.6.7 Schedule to Requests for Summons or Notice to Produce
- 7.7 Withdrawal and Dismissal of Oppositions
- 7.7.1 Withdrawal of an Opposition
- 7.7.2 Dismissal of an Opposition
- 7.7.2.1 Requests for Dismissal
- 7.7.2.2 Dismissal on the Initiative of the Commissioner
- 7.7.2.3 Reasons for Dismissal
- 7.7.3 Withdrawal of an Opposed Application
- 7.8 Hearings and Decisions
- 7.8.1 Setting Down Hearings
- 7.8.1.1 Setting of Hearing
- 7.8.1.2 Location and Options for Appearing
- 7.8.1.3 Hours of a Hearing
- 7.8.1.4 Hearing Fee
- 7.8.1.5 Who May Appear at a Hearing?
- 7.8.1.6 Relevant Court Actions Pending
- 7.8.2 Hearings Procedure
- 7.8.2.1 Overview of Proceedings
- 7.8.2.2 Adjournment of Hearings
- 7.8.2.3 Contact with Parties Outside of Hearing
- 7.8.2.4 Hearings Involving Confidential Material
- 7.8.2.5 Consultation with Other Hearing Officers
- 7.8.2.6 Hearings and the Police
- 7.8.3 Ex Parte Hearings
- 7.8.4 Natural Justice and Bias
- 7.8.4.1 Rules
- 7.8.4.2 Waiving of Objection of Bias by Standing by until Decision Issued
- 7.8.4.3 Bias as a Result of Contact with Parties Outside of Hearing
- 7.8.4.4 Bias as a Result of Other Proceedings Involving the Same Parties
- 7.8.5 Principles of Conduct
- 7.8.5.1 Lawfulness
- 7.8.5.2 Fairness
- 7.8.5.3 Rationality
- 7.8.5.4 Openness
- 7.8.5.5 Diligence and Efficiency
- 7.8.5.6 Courtesy and Integrity
- 7.8.6 Decisions
- 7.8.6.1 Written Decisions
- 7.8.6.2 Time for Issuing a Decision
- 7.8.6.3 Publication of Decisions
- 7.8.6.4 Rectification of Errors or Omissions in Decisions
- 7.8.6.5 Revocation of Decisions
- 7.8.7 Further Hearings
- 7.8.8 Final Determinations
- 7.8.8.1 Overview of Proceedings
- 7.8.8.2 Applicant Does Not Propose Amendments
- 7.8.8.3 Opponent Withdraws the Opposition
- 7.8.9 Quality
- 7.8.10 Appointment of Hearing Officers and Assistant Hearing Officers, Hearing Officer Standards Panel, Hearing Officer Delegations
- 7.9 Costs
- 7.9.1 Principles in Awarding Costs
- 7.9.2 Scale of Costs, Variation of the Scale
- 7.9.3 Awarding Costs, Taxation
- 7.9.4 Security for Costs
- 7.9.5 Exemplary Situations in Awarding Costs
- 7.10 The Register of Patents
- 7.10.1 What is the Register
- 7.10.2 Recording Particulars in the Register
- 7.10.2.1 Recording New Particulars in the Register
- 7.10.2.2 Change of Ownership
- 7.10.2.2.1 Assignment
- 7.10.2.2.2 Change of Name
- 7.10.2.2.3 Bankruptcy
- 7.10.2.2.4 Winding Up of Companies
- 7.10.2.2.5 Death of Patentee
- 7.10.2.3 Security Interests
- 7.10.2.4 Licences
- 7.10.2.5 Court Orders
- 7.10.2.6 Equitable Interests
- 7.10.2.7 Effect of Registration or Non-Registration
- 7.10.2.8 Trusts
- 7.10.2.9 False Entries in the Register
- 7.10.3 Amendment of the Register
- 7.11 Extensions of Time and Restoration of Priority
- 7.11.1 Extensions of Time - Section 223
- 7.11.1.1 Relevant Act
- 7.11.1.2 Subsection 223(1) - Office Error
- 7.11.1.2.1 Extensions under Subsection 223(1) to Gain Acceptance
- Annex A - Section 223(1) Extension of Time for Acceptance File Note
- 7.11.1.3 Subsection 223(2) - Error or Omission and Circumstances Beyond Control
- 7.11.1.3.1 The Law
- 7.11.1.3.2 Subsection 223(2)(a) - Error or Omission
- 7.11.1.3.3 Section 223(2)(b) - Circumstances Beyond Control
- 7.11.1.3.4 Filing a Request under Subsection 223(2)
- 7.11.1.3.5 The Commissioner's Discretion
- 7.11.1.4 Subsection 223(2A) - Despite Due Care
- 7.11.1.5 Common Deficiencies in Requests under Section 223(2) or (2A)
- 7.11.1.6 Advertising an Extension - Subsection 223(4)
- 7.11.1.7 Extension of Time for an Extension of Term
- 7.11.1.8 Grace Period Extensions
- 7.11.1.9 Extension of Time to Gain Acceptance
- 7.11.1.10 Examination Report Delayed or Not Received
- 7.11.1.11 Co-pending Section 104 Application - Budapest Treaty Details
- 7.11.1.12 Payment of Continuation or Renewal Fees Pending a Section 223 Applicaiton
- 7.11.1.13 Person Concerned: Change of Ownership
- 7.11.1.14 Date of a Patent Where an Extension of Time is Granted to Claim Priority
- 7.11.2 Extensions of Time - Reg 5.9
- 7.11.2.1 Requesting an Extension of Time
- 7.11.2.2 Application of the Law
- 7.11.2.3 Justification for the Extension
- 7.11.2.4 Discretionary Matters
- 7.11.2.5 Period of an Extension
- 7.11.2.6 A Hearing in Relation to an Extension
- 7.11.2.7 Parties Involved in Negotiations
- 7.11.2.8 Review of a Decision to Grant or Refuse an Extension
- 7.11.2.9 "Out of Time" Evidence
- 7.11.3 Extensions of Time - Reg 5.10 (as in force immediately before 15 April 2013)
- 7.11.4 Restoration of the Right of Priority Under the PCT
- 7.12 Extensions of Term of Standard Patents Relating to Pharmaceutical Substances
- 7.12.1 Section 70 Considerations
- 7.12.1.1 Pharmaceutical Substance per se
- 7.12.1.2 Meaning of Pharmaceutical Substance
- 7.12.1.3 Meaning of "when produced by a process that involves the use of recombinant DNA technology"
- 7.12.1.4 Meaning of "mixture or compound of substances"
- 7.12.1.5 Meaning of "in substance disclosed"
- 7.12.1.6 Meaning of "in substance fall within the scope of the claim"
- 7.12.1.7 Included in the Goods
- 7.12.1.8 First Regulatory Approval Date
- 7.12.2 Applying for an Extension of Term
- 7.12.2.1 Documentation Required
- 7.12.2.2 Time for Applying
- 7.12.2.3 Extension of Time to Apply for an Extension of Term
- 7.12.3 Processing an Application for an Extension of Term
- 7.12.3.1 Initial Processing
- 7.12.3.2 Consideration of the Application
- 7.12.3.3 Grant of Application for Extension of Term
- 7.12.3.4 Refusal of Application for Extension of Term
- 7.12.4 Calculating the Length of the Extension of Term
- 7.12.5 Patents of Addition
- 7.12.6 Divisional Applications
- 7.12.7 Oppositions to an Extension of Term
- 7.12.8 Relevant Court Proceedings Pending
- 7.12.9 Rectification of the Register
- 7.13 Orders for Inspection of non OPI Documents
- 7.13.1 Documents not-OPI by direction of the Commissioner - Regulation 4.3(2)(b)
- 7.13.2 Inspection of non-OPI Documents
- 7.14 Appeals AAT, ADJR, The Courts
- 7.14.1 Appeals to the Federal Court
- 7.14.2 AAT Review
- 7.14.3 Judicial Review (ADJR)
- 7.14.4 Other Court Actions Involving the Commissioner
- 7.14.5 Section 105 Amendments
- 7.15 Computerised Decisions
- 8. Superseded Legislation
- 8.1 Summary of Relevant Legislative Changes
- 8.2 General Approach to Examination
- 8.2.1 Restriction of the Report
- 8.2.2 Not All Claims Previously Searched and/or Examined
- 8.2.3 Law and Practice Differences
- 8.3 Amendments
- 8.3.1 Allowability of Amendments to Complete Specifications
- 8.3.2 Allowability Under Section 102(1)
- 8.3.3 Allowability Under Section 102(2) - General Comments
- 8.3.4 Amendments to a Provisional Specification
- 8.3.5 Opposition to Amendments - Standard Patents
- 8.4 Novelty
- 8.4.1 Introduction
- 8.4.2 Prior Art Information
- 8.4.3 Exclusions
- 8.4.4 Doctrine of Mechanical Equivalents
- 8.4.5 Basis of the "Whole of Contents" Objection
- 8.5 Inventive Step
- 8.5.1 The Statutory Basis for Inventive Step
- 8.5.2 Prior Art Base
- 8.5.3 Assessing Inventive Step in Examination
- 8.5.4 Common General Knowledge
- 8.5.5 Determining the Problem
- 8.5.6 Identifying the Person Skilled in the Art
- 8.5.7 Could the PSA have Ascertained, Understood, Regard as Relevant and Combined the Prior Art Information
- 8.5.7.1 Ascertained
- 8.5.7.2 Understood
- 8.5.7.3 Regarded as Relevant
- 8.5.7.3.1 Document Discloses the Same, or a Similar, Problem
- 8.5.7.3.2 Document Discloses a Different Problem
- 8.5.7.3.3 Age of the Document
- 8.5.7.3.4 Would the Person Skilled in the Art Have Used the Document to Solve the Problem
- 8.5.7.4 Does the Document Constitute a Single Source of Information
- 8.5.7.5 Could the PSA be Reasonably Expected to Have Combined the Documents to Solve the Problem
- 8.6 Innovative Step
- 8.7 Section 40 Specifications
- 8.7.1 Overview
- 8.7.2 What is the Invention?
- 8.7.2.1 General Considerations
- 8.7.2.2 Approach in Lockwood v Doric
- 8.7.2.3 Consistory Clause
- 8.7.2.4 Requirement for Critical Analysis
- 8.7.2.5 "Essential Features" of the Invention
- 8.7.3 Full Description - Best Method
- 8.7.3.1 Date for Determining Full Description
- 8.7.3.2 Can the Nature of the Invention be Ascertained?
- 8.7.3.3 Compliance with Subsection 40(2) is a Question of Fact
- 8.7.3.4 Enabling Disclosures
- 8.7.3.5 Effort Required to Perform the Invention
- 8.7.3.6 Different Aspects Claimed in Different Claims
- 8.7.3.7 Inclusion of References
- 8.7.3.8 Trade Marks in Specifications
- 8.7.3.9 Colour Drawings and Photographs
- 8.7.4 Claims Define the Invention
- 8.7.5 Claims are Fairly Based
- 8.7.5.1 General Principles
- 8.7.5.2 Sub-Tests for Fair Basis
- 8.7.5.3 Relation Between the Invention Described and the Invention Claimed
- 8.7.5.4 Only Disclosure is in a Claim
- 8.7.5.5 Alternatives in a Claim
- 8.7.5.6 Claiming by Results
- 8.7.5.7 Reach-Through Claims
- 8.7.5.8 Claims to Alloys
- 8.7.6 Provisional Specifications
- 8.7.7 Complete Applications Associated with Provisional Applications
- 8.8 Patentability Issues
- 8.9 Abstracts
- 8.10 Divisional Applications
- 8.10.1 Application
- 8.10.2 Priority Entitlement
- 8.10.3 Time Limits for Filing Applications
- 8.10.4 Subject Matter
- 8.10.5 Amendment of Patent Request - Conversion of Application to a Divisional
- 8.10.6 Case Management of Divisional Applications
- 8.11 Priority Dates and Filing Dates
- 8.11.1 Priority Date of Claims
- 8.11.2 Priority Date Specific to Associated Applications (Priority Dociment is a Provisional)
- 8.11.3 Priority Date Issues Specific to Convention Applications
- 8.11.4 Priority Date Issues Relating to Amended Claims
- 8.12 Examination
- 8.13 Modified Examination
- 8.14 Petty Patents
- 8.15 National Phase Applications
- 8.15.1 Key Features of the Legislation
- 8.15.2 National Phase Preliminaries
- 8.15.3 Formality Requirements
- 8.15.4 Priority Sources
- 8.15.5 Determining Whether Amendments Made Under Articles and Rules of the PCT are Considered During Examination
- 8.15.6 Amendments During Examination
- 8.16 Convention Applications
- 8.16.1 Convention Country Listing
- 8.16.2 Convention Country Status Change
- 8.16.3 Basic Application Outside 12 Month Convention Period
- 8.16.4 Convention Priority Dates
- 8.17 Patent Deed
5.6.6.4 Assessment of Inventive Step
Key Legislation:
Patents Act:
- s7(2), 7(3) Novelty
- s18(1)(b)(ii) Patentable inventions
- s49 Acceptance of patent request: standard patent
- Schedule 1 Dictionary
On this page
- Overview
- Problem-solution approach:
- Ex Post Facto analysis
- Determining the problem for assessing inventive step:
- Problem determined by reference to common general knowledge and prior art information
- Problem is explicitly stated in the specification
- Problem can be inferred from the specification
- Does the claim solve the identified problem?
- Amendment of the problem
- Invention in identifying the “real nature” of the problem
- Invention in the idea
- Invention in the purpose
- Common general knowledge:
- Prior art, or common general knowledge teaches away from the solution.
Overview
In this section, considerations which need to be regarded when applying the problem-solution approach for assessing whether an invention is obvious will be discussed. The problem-solution approach itself will be explained including the following considerations:
- Determining the problem;
- Formulating the question for assessing whether an invention is obvious in light of the factual situation;
- Avoiding ex post facto analysis;
- Identifying the relevant person skilled in the art; and
- Identifying what information constitutes common general knowledge.
Problem-solution approach
An approach used by the courts to assess whether an invention involves an inventive step is the "problem-solution" approach. This approach is based on the question of whether the claimed invention would have been obvious to a person skilled in the relevant art when faced with a particular problem (HPM Industries Pty Ltd v Gerard Industries Ltd 98 CLR 424 at page 437). The approach is the preferred one to apply when considering inventive step, as it reduces the risk of ex post facto analysis (see below) and helps identify all the issues relevant to establishing lack of inventive step.
Applying the problem-solution approach
The problem-solution approach involves the following steps:
a. Construe the specification under examination and determine the problem that the claimed invention solves (see 5.5.2.1 Initial considerations Determining the problem for assessing inventive step below).
b. Identify the person skilled in the art in the field of the problem (see 5.5.2.3 The person skilled in the art).
c. Determine, where applicable, whether in the context of the problem, any pieces of prior art information under consideration are such that the person skilled in the art could be reasonably expected to have combined them (see 5.5.2.3 The person skilled in the art)
d. Determine the relevant common general knowledge (see 5.5.2.4 The common general knowledge).
e. Determine whether, in the context of the problem, the claimed invention would have been obvious to the person skilled in the art. The question of obviousness can be formulated in one of the following ways:
- Asking whether it would have been a matter of routine to proceed from the CGK and relevant prior art information to the claimed invention;
- Using the “Cripps question” approach; or
- Asking whether the claimed invention is one of:
- a technical equivalent;
- a workshop improvement;
- an obvious selection or special inducement; or
- an obvious combination of features of common general knowledge.
f. Consider whether:
- the prior art information teaches away from the solution;
- the invention overcomes practical difficulties in seeking the solution; and
- the invention resides in identifying the "real nature" of the problem (see Determining the problem for assessing inventive step below).
g. If relevant, consider whether there has been a prior perceived need using the tests of:
- long-felt need;
- failure of others;
- copying of invention in preference to prior art; and
- commercial success.
It is noted that these tests are secondary indicators or 'signposts' of inventive step. The question of whether or not the claimed invention is obvious still needs to be addressed.
h. An objection of lack of inventive step only arises where it can be shown that a person skilled in the art would, in solving the problem, have taken the necessary steps to reach the claimed solution. In practice, this will be the case if the requirements under c. and e. are met, and those under f. and g. are not met.
In practical terms, examiners do not need to make a detailed analysis of every issue in each procedural step. Rather, examiners are to identify all relevant issues and explain these issues in an inventive step objection.
For example, a citation which is clearly a mere technical equivalent (in the context of the problem) of the claimed invention must presumably have fully solved the problem. That is, the only issues are whether the difference is a technical equivalent in the context of the problem and whether the technical equivalent is common general knowledge.
Examiners need to be aware to avoid including any part of the solution in the phrasing of the problem because this could result in an ex post facto analysis of inventive step.
Ex Post Facto Analysis
Unlike courts, examiners do not have access to evidence from the person skilled in the art. Instead, they are required to put themselves 'in the shoes of the skilled worker' and make their own assessment of what the notional skilled worker was likely to have done at the priority date. In doing so, they are to assess "obviousness" based on their own knowledge and balance of probability considerations, see 5.6.1.5 Application of the Balance of Probabilities in Examination.
Such assessment can be difficult because examiners will inevitably know the solution (that is, claimed invention) to the problem the invention is seeking to address. Examiners must set that knowledge aside in their assessment of inventive step and be aware that considerations of whether a claim is obvious can be coloured by:
- ex post facto analysis;
- judging the merit of the invention;
- the motivation for the invention;
- failing to recognise that an inventive step requires no more than a scintilla of invention;
- failing to determine the common general knowledge appropriate to the person skilled in the art; and
- failing to consider all relevant issues.
Courts have also discussed the problem of ex post facto dissection of the invention which has been stated as not helpful in resolving the question of obviousness (Meyers Taylor Pty Ltd v Vicarr Industries Ltd (1977) 137 CLR 228 at page 242).
Examiners are to remember that the question of obviousness is not ex post facto reasoning which involves taking the known solution and working backwards to the problem by a succession of apparently easy steps. In other words, the analysis is not one of reconstruction of an inventive process step by step, with each step being obvious in itself and when it is known, must be taken in a certain direction (Palmer v Dunlop Perdriau Rubber Co. Ltd (1937) 59 CLR 30 at page 61)
Determining the problem for assessing inventive step
Problem determined by reference to common general knowledge and prior art information
The knowledge or information which can be attributed to a skilled person for considering the question of obviousness will affect the answer. This includes knowledge of the problem being addressed by the patent specification. If the problem is itself common general knowledge, or knowledge that is s.7(3) information, then knowledge of the problem will be attributed to the skilled person for the purposes of assessing obviousness. However, if the problem cannot be attributed to the skilled person in either of these ways, then it not permissible to attribute knowledge of the problem on the basis of the inventor’s “starting point” which might be gleaned from a reading of the specification as a whole (AstraZeneca AB v Apotex Pty Ltd (2014) FCAFC 99 at paragraphs 202 and 203; 107 IPR 177).
Problem is explicitly stated in the specification
When determining the problem, examiners are to have regard to the specification. Specifications usually discuss the prior art and identify difficulties with that art. The specification may explicitly state the prior art difficulties that the claimed invention overcomes and identify the problem solved by the invention.
Problem can be inferred from the specification
Where there are no explicit statements in the specification which state what is the problem solved by the invention, examiners are to infer the problem. The considerations for such an inference include the:
- stated difficulties with the prior art;
- scope of the claim; and
- statement(s) of an "object of the invention".
Where there is no specific reference to difficulties with the prior art or objects of the invention, examiners may be able to deduce the problem by reading the specification as a whole, including the claims, and determining what contribution is made by the essential features of the broadest independent claim, taking into consideration the common general knowledge. The problem the claimed invention was "intended" to solve can be viewed as the task of attaining that contribution.
A specification may have several well-defined objects, or problems, with only some of these solved by the independent claim. In such cases, examiners are to identify the problem associated with the independent claim. If that claim is found to lack an inventive step, dependent claims should be considered in the context of the further problems associated with them.
Arguments that the problem identified is not part of the common general knowledge or prior art information may arise during examination at further report stages. Examiners need to consider these arguments on their merits and apply balance of probability considerations (see 5.6.1.5 Application of the Balance of Probabilities in Examination).
Does the claim solve the identified problem?
Having determined a problem, examiners are to:
- ascertain from the specification what features are necessary to solve the identified problem;
- check that the claim under consideration defines all of those features; and
- what the identified problem does is not solved by the claimed invention, the problem will have to be redetermined to one that the claim solves.
Amendment of the problem
In response to an examination report, the applicant may (apart from simply filing submissions rebutting the inventive step objection in the report) amend the problem, amend the claims, or delete all reference to the problem. These sorts of amendments may be more difficult after following the Raising the Bar Act 2012 amendments. Examiners will need to ensure any such amendments are allowable under s102 of the Patents Act 1990.
If the applicant amends the problem, and the amendments are allowable, examiners should proceed using the new problem, unless the amended problem is inconsistent with either the description or the relevant claim.
If the amended claims provide a different solution to the problem originally identified, examiners should consider whether the original problem is still applicable and if not, redetermine the problem.
In any case where the problem is amended, examiners should consider whether the amendment gives rise to no more than a "bonus effect", see 5.6.6.3 Tests for inventive step.
Invention in identifying the “real nature” of the problem
An inventive step can arise where:
- a problem was known;
- the cause of that problem was unknown at the priority date; and
- the inventor has identified the cause of the problem - the "real nature" of the problem.
In this situation, “the perception of the true nature of the problem was the inventive step which, once taken, revealed that straightforward experiments will provide the solution” (Wellcome Foundation Pty Ltd v VR Laboratories (Aust) Pty Ltd (1981) 148 CLR 262 at page 281).
Thus, if an inventive step lies in the identification of the true nature of the problem, it is irrelevant whether there is any subsequent inventive step in providing a solution to the problem.
Where the invention lies in identifying the true nature of the problem, this must be clear from the specification, either by assertion or by clear inference (Winner & Anor v Ammar Holdings Pty Ltd 24 IPR 137 at page 141).
In response to an objection of lack of inventive step, an applicant may amend the specification to assert that the invention resides in identifying the true nature of the problem. Such amendments must meet the normal allowability requirements.
However, if the nature of the problem is obvious, it cannot be said that the invention lies in identifying the real nature of the problem (Winner & Anor v Ammar Holdings Pty Ltd 25 IPR 273 at page 295).
If the prior art addresses or discusses the same problem, and identifies its true nature, any argument that an inventive step resides in identifying the true nature of the problem must fail.
If the prior art solves the problem, but has not recognised its true nature:
- the same solution will result in a novelty objection; otherwise
- a different solution will involve an inventive step.
Invention in the idea
In order to be patentable, an idea, in addition to having some means of carrying it out, must involve invention (Hickton's Patent Syndicate v Patents and Machine Improvements Co. Ltd (1909) 26 RPC 339).
Some generalised ideas or desiderata are inherently uninventive. Examples of such ideas are automatic operation, convenient arrangement of one's work, an increase in efficiency or combining a number of items into one piece (Pierre Treand's Application [1961] AOJP 2164).
Invention in the purpose
"It is not permissible to claim an article which as an article, requires no inventive ingenuity merely because, if used in a particular way, it will be useful in achieving a particular purpose."(Mullard Radio Valve Co. Ltd v British Belmont Radio Ltd and Juviler (1939) 56 RPC 1 at page 15).
Common general knowledge
What is CGK?
CGK is background knowledge and experience which is known or used by those in the relevant trade. The knowledge is available to all in the trade when developing new products or improving existing products (Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. v Beiersdorf (Australia) Limited (1980) 144 CLR 253 at page 292). CGK is not limited to material which might be memorised and retained at the front of the skilled workers mind but also includes material in the field in which they know exists and would refer as a matter of course, for example standard textbooks, technical dictionaries in the field, and publications specific to the field (ICI Chemicals & Polymers Ltd v Lubrizol Corp 45 IPR 577).
CGK is to be distinguished from “public knowledge” which is the entire body of publicly available information (General Tire & Rubber Co. v Firestone Tyre (1972) RPC 457).
Information that can form part of CGK
What constitutes common general knowledge in a particular matter can only be established by evidence. Examiners are not able to produce such evidence and therefore need to formulate an opinion of what is common general knowledge based on written information. The following may be used to infer what is common general knowledge:
- standard texts and handbooks;
- most dictionaries of standard English;
- relevant technical dictionaries;
- concession in the patent application under examination;
- magazines or other publications specific to the art; and
- patent specifications, under certain conditions.
However, the material disclosed in such publications does not necessarily constitute common general knowledge. A piece of particular knowledge disclosed in an article, or series of articles does not become common general knowledge merely because it is widely read or widely circulated. Such a piece of knowledge only becomes common general knowledge when it is generally known by the bulk of those who are engaged in the particular art and generally regarded as a good basis for further action (British Acoustic Films Ld v Nettlefold Productions (1936) 53 RPC 221 at page 250 and affirmed in General Tire & Rubber Company v Firestone Tyre and Rubber Company Ltd (1972) RPC 457).
It is important to distinguish between information which is in a publication which may be found by a diligent searcher and information which may be found by such a process and which itself forms part of the CGK (Aktiebolaget Hassle and Astra Pharmaceuticals Pty Limited v Alphapharm Pty Ltd 51 IPR 375). The question for assessing whether an invention is obvious is not whether a diligent search might find publications from which there might have been selected elements which make up a patent (Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. v Beiersdorf (Australia) Ltd (1980) 144 CLR 253). Information in a publication which qualifies as relevant prior art information would need to be regarded by the bulk of those working in a particular field as “generally regarded as a good basis for further action” for the information to regarded as part of the CGK.
In usual circumstances, examiners should not rely on a single patent specification as establishing the state of the common general knowledge.
Where multiple specifications refer to a piece of knowledge, this may be indicative of that knowledge being common general knowledge, especially when the applications are by different applicants. Rather than conducting lengthy searches for the sole purpose of identifying common general knowledge, examiners can consider the possibility of combining documents where the person skilled in the art would be reasonably expected to have done so.
CGK and acknowledged prior art
Acknowledgement of prior art in a patent specification is an admission which carries great weight (Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v F H Faulding and Co. Ltd 46 IPR 553). However, this does not prevent the applicant or patentee from providing evidence to contradict it (Lockwood v Doric (2007) HCA 21 at paragraph 109; Gerber Garment Technology v Lectra Systems (1995) FSR 492).
In the first instance, examiners may use a single standard textbook, or another similarly authoritative publication, or a number of patent specifications (published before the relevant priority date) as a basis for asserting that certain information is common general knowledge.
Depending on the art and the issues involved, examiners may be convinced by short submissions from the applicant that a feature was not common general knowledge. Otherwise, the applicant may need to provide more substantial arguments or evidence to tip the balance in their favour. Where examiners have a reasonable basis on which to conclude that a piece of information is common general knowledge, the burden of proof shifts to the applicant to satisfy examiners otherwise.
Examiners are to consider arguments that a piece of information is not common general knowledge based on their merits and should apply balance of probability considerations (see 5.6.1.5 Application of the Balance of Probabilities in Examination).
Prior art, or common general knowledge teaches away from the solution
Where the prior art or the common general knowledge teaches away from the claimed solution, the claims will have an inventive step. However, this will not be the case where the teaching of the prior art is based on an issue which the person skilled in the art would readily:
- recognise as being erroneous; and
- be able to correct.
In such cases, examiners must consider the prior art on the basis of the "corrected" disclosure.
Amended Reasons
Amended Reason | Date Amended |
---|---|
Published for testing |